Tag Archives: Scripture

A couple of terms were introduced, both of which color the system's view of eschatology.

(note: the descriptions, as I understand them, apply only to end times.)

Dispensationalism: all things are interpreted literally, all promises to Abraham and David are yet to be fulfilled (no promises have already been fulfilled)

Preterist: most of all prophecies concerning the end times have already been fulfilled.

Riddlebarger explains that neither of these views are correct.

When Scripture uses figurative language, interpret it figuratively. Dispensationalism takes the figurative and forces it into literalism.

Prophetic passages can also contain a "has passed, but has yet to come to pass" dual meaning.

Riddlebarger helps us understand that there were anti-Christ types before Jesus walked this earth, and that there have been many anti-Christs, and there will be more.

Therefore, since Antichrist has already come, remains with us today, and will come again, understanding the tension between the already and the not yet is the key to understanding what the doctrine of Antichrist actually entails, and understanding this tension enables us to know how we are to combat him.

“A man planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a pit for the winepress and built a tower , and leased it to tenants and went into another country . When the season came, he sent a servant to the tenants to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard . And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty- handed . Again he sent to them another servant , and they struck him on the head and treated him shamefully . And he sent another , and him they killed . And so with many others : some they beat , and some they killed . He had still one other, a beloved son . Finally he sent him to them , saying , ‘They will respect my son .’ But those tenants said to one another , ‘ This is the heir . Come , let us kill him , and the inheritance will be ours .’ And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard . What will the owner of the vineyard do ? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others .

Have you not read this Scripture :
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone ;
this was the Lord's doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes ’?”

Misconception #4: Submission is a right-a husband has the right to demand his wife's submission.

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice-her responsibility... it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to "submit herself"- deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It's his responsibility to be affectionate. It's her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband's responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church-not to make his wife submit.

My thought is that a Christian man, who has married a woman who claims to be a Christian, has the right to expect her to act like one. That includes being a submissive wife.

If he has not rights, then he is effectively in a hostage situation. Not a pleasant place.

She is to "submit herself"- deciding when and how to submit is her call.

Agreed.

The "when" is when she says "I do" on the altar.

The "how" is "as unto the Lord."

Anything other than that is disobedience to the Law of Christ, Scripture and love. It saddens me to see Kassian teach so.

Isaiah 40

and cry to her that her warfare is ended,
that her iniquity is pardoned,
that she has received from the LORD’s hand
double for all her sins.

A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Every valley shall be lifted up,
and every mountain and hill be made low;
the uneven ground shall become level,
and the rough places a plain.
And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed,
and all flesh shall see it together,
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

A voice says, "Cry!"

And I said, "What shall I cry?"
All flesh is grass,
and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.
The grass withers, the flower fades
when the breath of the LORD blows on it;
surely the people are grass.
The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.

Discuss whether you see a way around exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism that might still keep integrity of each particular religion in place. Discuss how religious language might or might not play a role in your conclusion.

Exclusivism (the doctrine that only one religion is “true”) is the foundation of many religions. If Scripture is correct, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Whatever a person believes passionately will come out of his or her mouth. People who believe that their belief system has the only means to salvation; if they believe that souls depend on the truth of that system, that belief will be shared with others. They can fully respect the dignity of other people, and understand the depth of the beliefs of others; they want to share the truth so that all will come to salvation. One can “witness” or “evangelize” by simply stating one’s belief, while allowing others to share their own beliefs in the same way.

Inclusivism may be compatible with exclusivism, in that (in Christianity, for example) inclusivism maintains that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation, but salvation (through Christ) can be obtained without a specific belief in Christ for salvation, but through the “general revelation” of nature. People who embrace inclusivism have an understanding that people who have never heard the gospel of Christ, may (through general revelation) may come to a saving faith without ever hearing of Christ).

Pluralism maintains that all religions are equally valid and that any religion may bring a person to salvation. This cannot be compatible with exclusivism (within a person) but may coincide with inclusivism. Once cannot simultaneously believe that there is only one means of salvation and believe that there are many ways to salvation.

Within a group of people, discussions can take place that allow sharing and debates of beliefs. These discussions can get passionate and even heated at times, and they depend on the ability of others to present their convictions and listen to other people and maintain respect and civility for the other people, even if they do not respect the other religion. If respect and civility are not present, the “doctrine of ‘just shut up’” might come into play.

As I listened to Issues Etc. on closed communion, I heard the message come through loud and clear...we must be in lockstep on the smallest of doctrines, or you are a false teacher.

The speaker also added that the reason for closed communion is that those who do not believe in the "real presence" of Christ in the elements are not able to "discern the body" - Lutherans defining "the body" as the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the communion elements, other Protestants defining "the body" as being able to discern whether or not the "self"/person partaking of the supper is a part of the body of Christ (the church).

I cannot see that. Scripture tells us to examine ourselves, it does not tell the church leadership to examine the flock.

The "selfish" reason I cannot see it is that I will not belong to a congregation that would deny my parents access to the meal that Christ gave us, because they are not in total agreement on doctrine.

We'll be making a trip here over Christmas break (the vet wants to wait until Toby's skin as really cleared up before we have him "fixed". For an extra $10 I have have him micro-chipped and registered.

“Spiritual experience that does not arise from God’s word is not Christian experience. . . . Not all that passes for Christian experience is genuine. An authentic experience of the Spirit is an experience in response to the gospel. Through the Spirit the truth touches our hearts, and that truth moves our emotions and effects our wills.”

This is the second perm Lindsey has done for me. She's slow (OCD about rolling), but without a doubt, she's done the best perm in my memory. I asked for her on Friday and I'll ask for her again.

Lindsey is a young woman who comes from a family with six children, (2 from her dad's previous marriage, the youngest 4 are adopted).

She's very open about her life so I asked her about being adopted (she's from Korea). It's pretty obvious that her parents have a grasp on eternity - I asked and they are Reformed.

She said, "I have friends that have asked me if I want to find my "real" family. I tell them [she used Scripture], I was thirsty and they gave me drink, I was hungry and they fed me. I was homeless and they put me into a family. What's not "real" about that?"

I think that Reformed people have a different view of adoption than other "flavors" of Christianity - the right definition of "covenant" counts. (by the way...when I get back from vacation - I just don't have time or desire right now - I'm ordering a new keyboard. The keys are taking turns not working...a few days ago it was "x", now it's "v". I need to reach for the laptop keyboard each time that letter comes up. I had no idea how many words I use contain the letter "v")

Then she talked about all of her "guy buddies" and wanting to go back to college but not being able to get a loan because her dad's a business owner.